I just found out about them today and it has been going on days for now. Only NYTimes and Guardian seems to talk about it. There's definetly some media blockage going on here. I dunno, it all reminds me of Russia.

I seriously need someone to explain this to me. The "Occupy Wall Street" website doesn't help give me any idea of what the ACTUAL GOAL is. I understand there's protests going on about greed and corruption in the financial center, but I can't find a concise description of any SPECIFIC points of criticism or SPECIFIC demands of change. Without such statements, these protests are... simply a gratuitous show of youthful rebellion. Peaceful, nonviolent rebellion, yes... but it's like a goth kid disregarding the opinions of authority JUST FOR THE SAKE OF defying authority.

Does it matter whether they're making an intelligent point or not? It seems to me that the issue here is that the police are abusing authority in general and the protesters in particular. Even assuming that the protesters have no point whatsoever, they're still doing nothing wrong.

Yes off course, going into a tiny room, working on a programatic paper, elect a leader and the guys around, need a few weeks or months and then step out into the world, when the dynamics and so is gone.Hey, you there upstairs! That's what you would like, ey?Forget it, we are are here, we are loud and we are many, a lot of people!!!

If the protesters around the world become more and more, then there could be a good chance of a big movement that can not be ignored, even because there is no "leadership". That's what it makes it so dangerous.

draque wrote:Does it matter whether they're making an intelligent point or not? It seems to me that the issue here is that the police are abusing authority in general and the protesters in particular. Even assuming that the protesters have no point whatsoever, they're still doing nothing wrong.

Don't get me wrong; I think the police handling of things was terrible and no one should be treated like that, whether they have a valid point or not.

No, my problem is like what Anna said: With no direction, it could be dangerous. Change for the sake of change is no better than no change at all, and protests without a goal are not much better than not protesting.

And more pragmatically: How do I know if I agree with them or not if they don't have a platform to agree with? I can't support them OR debate them.

~Only in silence the word, only in dark the light, only in dying life: bright the hawk's flight on the empty sky.~ The Creation of ÉaDamn you Clemson University, you deleted the 'sploding Kay that Etherwings uploaded eons ago!

I've listened to some protesters who are coherent (you know, the ones the media usually doesn't cover) and they don't have one specific goal. They have a number of goals, the most prominent being, "Tax the rich". Another is bringing back a little old thing called "democracy", where an individual's vote counted for something.

One of their other goals is to eliminate the corporate purchases of government officials.

Corporations fund government officials through campaign "donations" that come with some very hefty caveats. It is no longer a government by the people, for the people and of the people. It is a government that is a wholly owned subsidiary of Exxon, etc.

Anyone who isn't vastly wealthy does not have a say in America, any more. That's why they're out there, protesting.

Good grief, that would be bloody dangerous. o.o The whole point of having a congress -- the whole point of the government being representative, the reason the US is a republic and not a democracy -- is to avoid the rule of the selfish majority. Yes, right now the protests are that we have the rule of the selfish minority, but if you get enough upset people directly influencing Congress and things will just fall apart in the OPPOSITE direction.